1988 Could Be Watershed Year For Race In Presidential Politics

COMMENTARY

January 26, 1988|By ROBERT MAYNARD, Universal Press Syndicate

The image of my grim-faced parents is still vivid in my mind. They were standing at the kitchen table looking down at the newspaper. The bold headlines declared that the Southern Democrats had bolted from the Democratic Party at its national convention. The issue was race.

``These people,`` my father said, pointing at the picture of a Dixiecrat senator, ``won`t change for 100 years.`` My mother, almost as if she were finishing his sentence, added, ``if then.``

The year was 1948, and the issue of race has played a role in presidential campaigns ever since. In some years, the issue has been more volatile than in others. The elections of 1964 and 1968, at the height of the civil rights movement, were perhaps the most racially divisive in recent times. The 1980 campaign also crackled with racial undertones in some states.

For all that, 1988 could be a watershed year with respect to race and presidential politics. This could be the year the leading candidates in both parties search for consensus instead of emphasizing their differences on racial matters. If that holds true from now until November, it would be a first.

In a sense, 1988 is the year that tests the degree to which our society is maturing in its social relations. Even though Jesse Jackson is doubtful as the Democratic nominee, he has established himself as a significant figure in the political arena.

More than a test of any one candidate, 1988 is the year that tests all candidates. By contrast to 1948 and the campaigns since, this could be the year the major candidates in both parties recognize the importance of racial reconciliation in America.

The history of race relations in recent years has been marked by a rancorous debate over guilt and blame. The political rhetoric has consisted of code words and phrases that spoke to alienation and enmity.

Now, as we look at America`s competitive position in the global economy, one fact looms large above all others. The key to our economic destiny lies in enhanced productivity.

To achieve that requires a trained, more efficient work force. That, in turn, can result only from a significant national commitment to education and training, especially of underutilized urban youth.

Sometime early in the 21st century, almost half those competing to enter the workplace will be people of color. How well we do as an economy will depend in no small measure on how well they do in school and on the job.

To some extent, all the leading candidates seem to recognize the importance of this problem. In that sense, what used to be called civil rights issues are gradually being recognized as a set of significant public-policy challenges.

In the past, it has been difficult to achieve a national consensus because there were too many politicians eager to play the politics of divisiveness over racial issues. Now the questions for those who seek to be the next president concern the degree to which they understand the need for that consensus and have the will to try to build one.

Back in 1948, those Dixiecrats set off a wave of racial politics that washed across the South for more than a generation. In due course, the civil rights movement led to their downfall, but not before deep damage was done to our sense of national community.

During the 1960s, the most militant elements of the ``Black Power`` movement drove many white volunteers out of the civil rights struggle, contributing further to racial alienation.

In the cooler climate of the `80s, despite such aberrations as Howard Beach and Jimmy ``the Greek`` Snyder, strong presidential leadership can build bridges of understanding between our various communities.

What today`s leaders must understand is something the Dixiecrats could not comprehend: This nation needs all its productive human resources if we are to remain a first-rank world power. No less than that is at stake.